Enemies foreign or domestic, meathead. You don't get to make it up as you go along.
Red Flag Law- Extreme Risk Protective Order
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
Enemies foreign or domestic, meathead. You don't get to make it up as you go along.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The idiot doesn’t know that DUI checkpoints DO NOT violate 4th Amendment rights.
Thinks he wrote the Constitution, so he knows what the founders “didn’t want”.
its hilarious watching you double down on your stupidity, because if you knew anything about the law or the courts, you'd have actually read the decision where Rehnquist specifically states that DUI checkpoints violate the 4th Amendment
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes, you are, but you continue to embarrass yourself by claiming that you do
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can you provide citations from any of the founding fathers, framers of the constitution, or the debate minutes to verify your claim?
Why do you reply to your own posts, idiot? You need a competency hearing so we can remove your guns.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Why do you reply to your own posts, idiot? You need a competency hearing so we can remove your guns.
still doubling down on your stupid, aren't you?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Sorry scrotum breath but Red Flag is a hearing not a trial.
"Hearings are used to determine temporary orders and some procedural matters. The trial is where both parties present evidence and arguments for the judge to use in making a final decision. The court generally does not allow witnesses until the trial. At hearings, the court relies on affidavits and your arguments."
“the Supreme Court has found that temporary DUI checkpoint stops (without reasonable suspicion) do not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers. Basically, the Court said the importance of keeping impaired drivers off the road generally outweighs the inconvenience and intrusion to motorists. (Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).)”
Checkmate, stupid fuck.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if you consider a hearing, where ONLY government witnesses present evidence against a citizen to deprive them of property and rights, is due process then you're part of whats wrong with America. you never did answer my question about what's proper remuneration for persons having had their rights and property violated that were proven not a threat...................will you answer that?
Never heard of a grand jury, have you, idiot?
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
No dude, I can't wake the dead any more than you can. But, I am capable of using common sense- something you should learn to do as well!
But just because we cannot ask our forefathers, does not mean that I am going to let you Bat-shit-crazy Gun-Toting Conspiracy Terrorists rewrite American history to justify your Insane fetish for guns and ideas of overthrowing our own government and shooting innocent people you don't like at the Walmart stores!
You people are a problem- and our country is being assaulted by you Gun-Toting idiots that think the 2nd Amendment gives you maniacs some imagined right to turn your guns on and carry out your murderous assaults on people you racists don't like!
"And he went unprosecuted."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you think the wikipedia summation of the decision proves your point????? ROFL
the entire board understands your limited intellectual ability to understand anything but written words and that you have zero ability to identify concepts, except for you idiot penchant to want to refer to the 2nd Amendment with madisons first version, even though it never made it to ratification..............but hey, you're a moron so.........
Checkmate, stupid fuck.
and you still don't understand constitutional references or the constiution itself
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Innocent kindergarteners, High Schoolers, Concert attendees, and Walmart shoppers are not Domestic enemies you meat-slapping slack-jawed idiot!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
a grand jury decision doesn't remove property or violate the rights of people, idiot.
more doubling down on your stupidity. hilarious
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then i'd say the problem was with the state, not the health professional
you think the wikipedia summation of the decision proves your point????? ROFL
the entire board understands your limited intellectual ability to understand anything but written words and that you have zero ability to identify concepts, except for you idiot penchant to want to refer to the 2nd Amendment with madisons first version, even though it never made it to ratification..............but hey, you're a moron so.........
Checkmate, stupid fuck.
and you still don't understand constitutional references or the constiution itself
6-3 decision, stupid cunt. DUI checkpoints DO NOT violate the 4th. You can look it up on numerous sources, you fucking idiot.
“In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
CHECKMATE, cunt.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
citations are not the spoken words, obviously, but there are voluminous copies of all of those items I mentioned that specifically have citations...........are they not good enough for you to use? and don't bother with the common sense argument, you don't know what it is.
there's no rewriting history at all. there have been dozens of citations providing you hateful anti gunners and communists with proof that the 2nd Amendment prevents the feds from touching our firearms.............go read them
there is no such right, despite your racist attempts to come up with one.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
6-3 decision, stupid cunt. DUI checkpoints DO NOT violate the 4th. You can look it up on numerous sources, you fucking idiot.
“In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.The judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
CHECKMATE, cunt.
since you're in to exact words, what does 'shall not be infringed' mean??????
checkmate, cumbucket